• There is no such thing as harmless animal test

    All testing done on animals is harmful in one way or the other. No matter if it that severe or not, even the tiniest change on the animal can cause havoc in the future. Altering with nature is never a good thing. It has terrible consequences in the end. Yes it should be banned.

  • There is no such thing as harmless.

    Lol what do you mean by harmless? I am pretty sure people are going to have a problem with me being against animal testing and I am pretty sure people wont read all of it just cherry pick. But what would testing and harmless do? To test something you have to observe the after effects of what happens on medication, shampoo, toothpaste, cologne, chemicals. There is no such thing as harmless for the reason that they have to observe what it does to the animal, point of animal testing.

    Most products being tested are harmful to animals, (how do you think they know how many tablespoons to take of certain medications, or how much toothpaste to use?) They have to test how much quantities the animal can take in before it dies. How is that harmless? Most of those products such as shampoos and anything else you put on your body or in your body is harmful to animals.

    Testing for behavior of animals I can understand sure there are some things that are not dangerous.. But products I cannot.

    I would say yes if it was the other way around but can you name of any product that is not harmful to animals when indigested, rubbed in the eyes/skin, or made to swallow???

  • No testing on animals

    Animals cant speak for them selves so someone needs to speak for them. Its cruel to test on these animals who haven't done anything, but the convicts who are on death row should be tested on in stead of innocent animals. I hope this helps your debate. Thanks for reading.

  • Of course it should be banned

    All testing is harmful in a way. You are taking animals away from their natural habitat. It is like the residential schools that Canada used to have. Horrible! You are still somewhat harming the animal, and you can't justify that. Why do human needs hold more value than other organisms?

  • Harmless or Not

    If the test are harmless, why can't humans do them? I am not mindlessly rallying against animal testing. I am saying the animals lives are equal to humans, and even if it IS harmless, the animals aren't being tested VOLUNTARILY. Do they want to be tested on to help humans? NO! So if it really is harmless, why don't people test things themselves? It could even be a job!

  • There is normally no harm and its 4 research

    It normally just happens once or twice and often on a part of the body of the animal where it does not hurt that much. Animal lives are not worth as much as human lives because humans recycle, invent and help animals. Many people have never seen animal testing and think its bad.

  • Unless it's harmless

    I compare animals to humans because humans are animals and all animals have a mind set and a choice. There are many different kinds of tests. Some are harmful and some are harmless. Do you want to be tested in a test that is harmless voluntarily? People take harmless tests all the time, and it seems, most of the time, indifferent to them. So if it has no effect to the animal, then why not?

  • As long as it's really harmless

    Animals deserve to be treated humanely at all times, unquestionably. However, humane treatment doesn't extend to the point of excluding using animals for food or benign research. Humane treatment means that animals should have decent living conditions which include adequate food, fresh water, the ability to move around comfortably, and not being subjected to any treatment that causes unnecessary pain or disability. As long as those constraints are met, testing which does not harm the animal or cause it any physical discomfort is acceptable.

  • Why should it?

    The important part here is the word "harmless".
    If the test are truly harmless, the animals don't get hurt in anyway. If the animals don't get hurt, there is nothing wrong with the test, if there is nothing wrong, they shouldn't get banned.
    Anything, that does no harm, should ever get banned.

  • Obviously it should not

    People often rail against animal testing unthinkingly. Do people realize that not every single animal testing experiment is dangerous to the animals? It depends on what they test for and what the experiment involves. Sometimes the animal may even have fun during the experiment but people act as if any and all animal experimentation must hurt the animal.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
GWL-CPA says2013-10-06T01:44:39.680
Another stupid question. Animals are always used in testing first before it is tried on humans. And, there is nothing anyone can do about that.

What exactly is a harmless animal? Should we use lions, tigers and elephants in testing and not white rats or mice?

Who comes up with these nonsense question, kids?

We sent chimps up into space first; we did not care if they suffered or were killed. Too bad; man will always be more important than animals.

Animals are animals. Sorry. Man is the at the top of the food chain and the smartest animal. Who gives a rat's Arse if animals used in testing suffer. Of course they suffer, then they are killed. Too bad, get over it.

Animals that are used in testing are usually killed. And, no one will ever change that. Animals are killed for food, too bad if they suffer when they die; they are animals.

I do think that more convicted criminals with life sentences should be used after the drugs are tested on Animals. Those folks are worthless nothings that should be killed, so why not kill them in testing new procedures and drugs.
MasturDbtor says2013-10-06T03:41:20.813
GWL, it's just a question.
Notice I never said I was against animal testing when it was harmful. I just said I was against it when it was harmless. I asked because I've read people saying animal testing should be banned where they seem to be thinking of this as a blanket ban when there are clearly cases of animal testing where the animals aren't even being hurt yet they're still opposing it even then.
MasturDbtor says2013-10-06T03:45:05.257
I do agree we reign supreme over animals. And not even for any virtue simply because it is in our combined self-interests to maintain such a state of affairs. Though "top of the food chain" while generally true sometimes is not (people getting eaten by sharks, bears, tigers, anacondas). If the other species could do what we do they would too, that's all the justification we need.
GWL-CPA says2013-10-06T04:04:59.360
We could wipe all sharks, anacondas, bears, tigers and any other animals we choose off the face of the earth if we wanted. It is unfortunate that they sometimes kill humans. Most of these creatures should only be allowed to exist in zoos. They really serve no purpose that humans could not take care of themselves.

As far as testing on harmless animals, the question is pointless.
MasturDbtor says2013-10-06T04:11:08.717
That is true. People talk about them being necessary for the ecosystem. We could build robots to fill in those functions. Robots that unlike sharks only attack the populations they need to control and not people. Heck, we could design them to be cute and cuddly to people even to identify people in distress and save them.
I don't think we should wipe them out. That's a loss of information. That is potentially valuable research, so have them in zoos and larger areas if researchers deem it necessary.